Williams v. Troutt et al

Filing 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned RECOMMENDS that Williams's Motion be construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Williams's Motion fo r Voluntary Dismissal be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Finally, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Williams's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, which is based upon the same allegations regarding his a ccess to courts as made in his Complaint, be found MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern on 12/16/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILE DIVISION

JUSTIN LEE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-02473

v.

Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp
Magistrate Judge Newbern

SONYA TROUTT, MICHAEL
MCLERRAN, KEITH BEAN, and JACK
BABBITT,
Defendants.

To The Honorable Kevin H. Sharp:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Justin Lee Williams filed this Section 1983 civil rights action on September
12, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) Williams alleged, inter alia, that Defendants Troutt, McLerran, Bean, and
Babbitt—all officers working in the Sumner County Jail—denied his right of access to the courts
by preventing him from calling his attorney and providing postage for his legal mail, subjected
him to undue punishment, and exposed him to threats from other inmates. (Id.) Williams asked the
Court for a preliminary injunction against Defendants to allow him access to his attorney and to
stop the alleged undue punishment. (Id.) Williams also sought $1.00 in nominal damages and any
other available equitable relief. (Id.)
On November 1, 2016, Williams was transferred to a different facility where Defendants
are not employed. (Doc. No. 21.) He now moves to dismiss this action as moot. (Id.) Defendants
have no objection to this motion. (Doc. No. 22.) Because the Court can no longer grant the

1

primary relief Williams sought, finding the action moot is appropriate. Calderon v. Moore, 518
U.S. 149, 150 (1996).
Williams did not indicate under what Federal Rule of Civil Procedure he sought to dismiss
his action. Because Williams seeks to dismiss his own action on grounds of mootness, and because
no determination has been made on the merits of Williams’s claims, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that Williams’s Motion be construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that
Williams’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED AS
MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Finally, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Williams’s
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, which is based upon the same allegations regarding
his access to courts as made in his Complaint, be found MOOT.
Any party has fourteen (14) days from the receipt of this Report and Recommendation in
which to file any written objections to it with the District Court. Any party opposing said
objections shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any objections filed in which to file any
responses to said objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections within
fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further
appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Cowherd v. Million,
380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
It is so ORDERED.

____________________________________
ALISTAIR E. NEWBERN
United States Magistrate Judge

2